Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
704 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
HI, i own a scalpel with the crossmass SL, im trying to reduce some weight, and i thinking what would be a better option, to use the stock tires with are Hutchinson Phyton Light TUbeless or go with a tubed tires, Which will weight more? And if i go with tubed what would be a good racing tires?

thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
sebastian21 said:
HI, i own a scalpel with the crossmass SL, im trying to reduce some weight, and i thinking what would be a better option, to use the stock tires with are Hutchinson Phyton Light TUbeless or go with a tubed tires, Which will weight more? And if i go with tubed what would be a good racing tires?

thanks
Dear Sebastian 21,
Since the Crossmax SL is probally the ultimate tubeless specific wheelset, I would say go tubeless! With this wheel and an UST tire, you don't even have to use sealant. You can run on lower air preasure than with a tubed tire and never get a pinch flat. How big a fella are ya? I am not a big guy and love tubeless. There are some Clydes I know that say they prefer tubes due to potential leakage at lower preasures. I hope this helps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
704 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
hey

HI, thanks for the reply, Im 5'8' and i weight 193 lb , I was using tubeless on the mavic xc919, and i like the way you can run lower pressure. but my big question is how much WEIGHT difference between a tubeless and tubed tires/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
734 Posts
sebastian21 said:
HI, i own a scalpel with the crossmass SL, im trying to reduce some weight, and i thinking what would be a better option, to use the stock tires with are Hutchinson Phyton Light TUbeless or go with a tubed tires, Which will weight more? And if i go with tubed what would be a good racing tires?

thanks
The Python UST is only about 125g heavier than the tubed version (which is typical of modern UST designs (particularly race tires), most are only about 100g(+) more than the tube versions) Unless you are willing to run sub 125g tubes (which are risky in a race as they pinch-flat fairly easily) the USTs will be lighter.
 

·
Probably drunk right now
Joined
·
6,750 Posts
Until...

Grumpy said:
The Python UST is only about 125g heavier than the tubed version (which is typical of modern UST designs (particularly race tires), most are only about 100g(+) more than the tube versions) Unless you are willing to run sub 125g tubes (which are risky in a race as they pinch-flat fairly easily) the USTs will be lighter.
Until you add the sealant, then the weight is about a wash.
 

·
mtbr platinum member
Joined
·
1,426 Posts
Ken in KC said:
Until you add the sealant, then the weight is about a wash.
He said UST tires, which do not require sealant. You can use sealant if you want to, but it isn't necessary in most cases.

IMHO, you should not switch to UST to reduce weight, because the savings are not really there (and in some cases heavier than the tubed equivalent). However, if you live in an area where there are thorns/cactus/etc on the trails, then you will greatly benefit from the puncture resistance of a UST tire/rim setup. UST tires typically hold air even with thorns in them, so you can easily finish the race without fully flatting. If you run a scoop of sealant, then you won't even have to patch the hole, as it will just seal over it. Again, this will probably be heavier than a tubed setup, but with added reliability. Punctures in races suck, as you will probably be out of the Top 10 immediately.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
734 Posts
Did you guys actually read my post??
Modern lightweight UST designs are only about 100(+)grams heavier than the tube version Sooo... if you add the tube tire and the tube you will have a heavier wheel than the UST tire alone (Unless you run a sub 125g tube, but I would not recommend it they are very fragile)

There is nothing else required on a Crossmax wheel with a UST tire-no sealant or rim-strips required.

Bottom line is; if you have UST rims it is tough to beat a UST tire weight wise and you will defiantly have a more reliable wheel (with UST) than a tube OR using a tube type tire with latex sealant (which can be done on a crossmax without a strip but I wouldn't recommend it)
 

·
Probably drunk right now
Joined
·
6,750 Posts
Yes....

Grumpy said:
Did you guys actually read my post??
Modern lightweight UST designs are only about 100(+)grams heavier than the tube version Sooo... if you add the tube tire and the tube you will have a heavier wheel than the UST tire alone (Unless you run a sub 125g tube, but I would not recommend it they are very fragile)

There is nothing else required on a Crossmax wheel with a UST tire-no sealant or rim-strips required.

Bottom line is; if you have UST rims it is tough to beat a UST tire weight wise and you will defiantly have a more reliable wheel (with UST) than a tube OR using a tube type tire with latex sealant (which can be done on a crossmax without a strip but I wouldn't recommend it)

I read it. The only true advantage to tubeless is resistence to thorn flats (which requires some sort of sealant).

Once you add that sealant to gain the thorn flat resistence, you lose any weight savings. If there was weight saving to begin with.

Other than what I've mentioned above, I haven't found any benefit to tubeless. I run the same pressures (30-35 psi) on tubed and tubeless. I seem to hook up the same. I don't pinch flat on either set up. They weigh about the same. I pay a lot more for tubeless tires. So why tubeless?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
734 Posts
Ken in KC said:
I read it. The only true advantage to tubeless is resistence to thorn flats (which requires some sort of sealant).

Once you add that sealant to gain the thorn flat resistence, you lose any weight savings. If there was weight saving to begin with.

Other than what I've mentioned above, I haven't found any benefit to tubeless. I run the same pressures (30-35 psi) on tubed and tubeless. I seem to hook up the same. I don't pinch flat on either set up. They weigh about the same. I pay a lot more for tubeless tires. So why tubeless?
They have better traction, better resistance to thorns (without sealant) and slower deflation if punctured (you can normally finish the race (or ride) even with several thorn punctures), are almost immune to pinch flats, roll better and typically weigh the same or less (than standard tire + standard tube).

I paid $25 (/tire) for my last set of UST (air light) spiders (on sale at performance) I could have gotten the regular (tubed) Spiders for $22 but I would have to add the cost of tubes...
 

·
Probably drunk right now
Joined
·
6,750 Posts
Not to me...

Grumpy said:
They have better traction, better resistance to thorns (without sealant) and slower deflation if punctured (you can normally finish the race (or ride) even with several thorn punctures), are almost immune to pinch flats, roll better and typically weigh the same or less (than standard tire + standard tube).

I paid $25 (/tire) for my last set of UST (air light) spiders (on sale at performance) I could have gotten the regular (tubed) Spiders for $22 but I would have to add the cost of tubes...

I haven't found that to be the case. Traction is basically the same and more a factor of which tire/tread you have. They have better resistence to thorns with sealant but still leak and without sealant are the same. Perhaps my thorns are bigger than yours since one of mine (tubed or without sealant) requires a patch. I haven't pinch flatted on either system in several years, so this point is moot to me. Roll better? How? Because they don't have a tube? It sounds like we both agree that weight isn't a factor (especially if you add sealant).

The last pair I purchased were around $45/tire. The last pair of tubed I purchased were about $30/tire and they're better tires (better traction, roll better, etc.).

I'm not suggesting that tubed are better than tubeless but they're not the second coming of the suspension fork.... yet. They may get the bugd worked out of them but until then, I'm sticking with Ollie's Yes Tubes.

Ken
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
734 Posts
Ken in KC said:
I haven't found that to be the case. Traction is basically the same and more a factor of which tire/tread you have. They have better resistence to thorns with sealant but still leak and without sealant are the same. Perhaps my thorns are bigger than yours since one of mine (tubed or without sealant) requires a patch. I haven't pinch flatted on either system in several years, so this point is moot to me. Roll better? How? Because they don't have a tube? It sounds like we both agree that weight isn't a factor (especially if you add sealant).

The last pair I purchased were around $45/tire. The last pair of tubed I purchased were about $30/tire and they're better tires (better traction, roll better, etc.).

I'm not suggesting that tubed are better than tubeless but they're not the second coming of the suspension fork.... yet. They may get the bugd worked out of them but until then, I'm sticking with Ollie's Yes Tubes.

Ken
Ken there is no big trick to paying too much for something, but neither does it prove anything (it's know as a straw man augment; I paid $50k for a Hyundai therefore Hyundai's are expensive. While the facts may be correct it doesn't support the conclusion)

I never said that UST were night and day different, but they are a little better in almost every way (that is if you already own UST hoops) there is almost no downside to running them (and BTW wake up and smell the coffee they worked any major bugs out of UST's years ago)

The only downside I see (and it causes me to run tubes at times) is that not all tires are available as UST (or are limited in available sizes) But if there is a UST and non UST of a tire you want to run and you have UST rims you would foolish not to run it. There is almost no downsides and a number of upsides.
 

·
Probably drunk right now
Joined
·
6,750 Posts
Humm...

Grumpy said:
Ken there is no big trick to paying too much for something, but neither does it prove anything (it's know as a straw man augment; I paid $50k for a Hyundai therefore Hyundai's are expensive. While the facts may be correct it doesn't support the conclusion)

I never said that UST were night and day different, but they are a little better in almost every way (that is if you already own UST hoops) there is almost no downside to running them (and BTW wake up and smell the coffee they worked any major bugs out of UST's years ago)

The only downside I see (and it causes me to run tubes at times) is that not all tires are available as UST (or are limited in available sizes) But if there is a UST and non UST of a tire you want to run and you have UST rims you would foolish not to run it. There is almost no downsides and a number of upsides.
er... OK. So you're somehow able to discern that the tires I purchased were overpriced?

So the leaking and the flats that I have aren't normal? It's uncommon to have weeping coming from the tires on a regular basis? How come then, there are still questions or concerns about these issues. I've been smelling the coffee for the past several years but the inherent problems still seem to be around. Since they worked the bugs out years ago, these must be new problems.

As I mentioned, I don't see performance differences between the two systems. I still remain unconvinced that there's any reason to run tubeless. The "benefits" that you've described I simply don't see. So why get rid of my tubed wheelset? There's certainly no cost justification to do so.

So we're clear, I have a Mavix XL UST Tubeless wheelset running Hutchinson Octipus UST 2.4s. I've been running that wheelset for about 3 years. And again, I still find now appreciable difference between tubeless and tubed. If someone's bike comes with a tubeless wheelset, then they should run them. If they're looking to switch from their current tubed wheel set to tubeless, then the cost of the new wheelset doesn't justify the extra cost.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
770 Posts
Ken in KC said:
I read it. The only true advantage to tubeless is resistence to thorn flats (which requires some sort of sealant).

Once you add that sealant to gain the thorn flat resistence, you lose any weight savings. If there was weight saving to begin with.

Other than what I've mentioned above, I haven't found any benefit to tubeless. I run the same pressures (30-35 psi) on tubed and tubeless. I seem to hook up the same. I don't pinch flat on either set up. They weigh about the same. I pay a lot more for tubeless tires. So why tubeless?
Better protection against sidewall tears.
Much better protection!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
734 Posts
You missed the point, what you paid for a couple tires you bought at one time cannot be logically extended to infer that UST's are much more expensive. More importantly it is not true.

It is widely accepted (not just my opinion) that UST tires do roll better and do have better traction and are more reliable. In addition the current crop of lightweight USTs are actually lighter than a tire (the same tire) with a (reasonable 150-180g) tube.

BTW you do get that the yestubes site is a rip on Stan not UST's don't you?
 

·
EDR
Joined
·
10,011 Posts
..if you want to save weight using ust you're barking up the wrong tree. For me its simple...reliability.

I have run ust for almost 3 years (with sealant) after riding with tubes. I live in the desert SW where flats are common place. With the ust set up I have had ZERO flats on the trail. Sure, without sealant I would have had dozens or more but with sealant.......

I just didn't have the same luck running slime in tubed tires, still had to stop to fix flats occasionally.

I also run my rear ust spider at around 28psi, and the plushness hooks up very well on rocks and hardpack climbs. Better than tubed tires??? I don't know but I do know I never would run my tubes at 27 or 28lbs...

I don't think ust has advantages for everyone, but for me...i'm happy.
 

·
Probably drunk right now
Joined
·
6,750 Posts
Yawn....

Grumpy said:
You missed the point, what you paid for a couple tires you bought at one time cannot be logically extended to infer that UST's are much more expensive. More importantly it is not true.

It is widely accepted (not just my opinion) that UST tires do roll better and do have better traction and are more reliable. In addition the current crop of lightweight USTs are actually lighter than a tire (the same tire) with a (reasonable 150-180g) tube.

BTW you do get that the yestubes site is a rip on Stan not UST's don't you?
So switching from tubed tires to UST isn't expensive? I thought at a minimum you had to buy a UST rim.

It's not widely accepted. People who ride them contend this based on what marketing has told them. The only "study" conducted to date is from a European MTB mag. The article (from which all the marketing claims have been based) claimed less rolling resistence, better traction, yada, yada, yada. One article in a mag and UST system manufacturers jumped on this and began promoting it. The only problem is that the author of the article happened to be the project engineer for Michellin who was in charge of the UST mountain bike program. Perhaps a conflict of interest?

In laboratories on an absolutely smooth surface, tubeless rolls better than tubed. The problem with this study is that mountain bikes rarely ride on a laboratory smooth surface.

You can post until you're blue in the face but I have two bikes that I ride frequently. One with UST tubeless and one tubed.

- The difference in air pressure? Zero.
- Number of pinch flats on both systems? Zero.
- Traction and grip on both systems? I can't tell the difference.
- Number of tire brands/types I've switched to on tubed trying to improve traction and performance in the past 4 years? Zero.
- Number of tire brands/types I've switched to on tubeless trying to improve traction and performance in the past 4 years? 3 just to match the performance of my tubed tires.
- Amount of time spent dicking around with sealant/holes in the tire/low air pressure on tubed? Not much.
- Amount of time spent dicking around with sealant/holes in the tire/low air pressure on tubeless? Every ride.


BTW: The Yes Tubes site is a rip on tubeless, not just Stan's. Pete and Rich set it up to bag on people who bought in to the tubeless hype. But you knew that, I suppose.

When you switched to UST, did you go up in tire size or stay the same?

Ken
 

·
Probably drunk right now
Joined
·
6,750 Posts
What?

preparation_h said:
Better protection against sidewall tears.
Much better protection!
No. In addition to simply not being true, if you rip a sidewall on a tubeless tire, you're buying a new tire. If you rip a tire on tubed, you boot it and it rides on.

So let me get this straight:

Lower air pressure with lower rolling resistence. Magic.
Lighter weight tires than tubed but thicker sidewalls that don't rip.
Eliminates pinch flats.
Torns somehow don't puncture tubeless tires like they do tubed.
UST costs the same as tubed.

Got it. I'm still not switching. Why?

Because the last pinch flat I had was on a UST tubeless tire.
I run the same air pressure.
I don't pinch flat.
I torn sidewalls on tubeless.
I roll the same on tubed as tubeless on singletrack.
 

·
Probably drunk right now
Joined
·
6,750 Posts
I agree 100%

eatdrinkride said:
..if you want to save weight using ust you're barking up the wrong tree. For me its simple...reliability.

I have run ust for almost 3 years (with sealant) after riding with tubes. I live in the desert SW where flats are common place. With the ust set up I have had ZERO flats on the trail. Sure, without sealant I would have had dozens or more but with sealant.......

I just didn't have the same luck running slime in tubed tires, still had to stop to fix flats occasionally.

I also run my rear ust spider at around 28psi, and the plushness hooks up very well on rocks and hardpack climbs. Better than tubed tires??? I don't know but I do know I never would run my tubes at 27 or 28lbs...

I don't think ust has advantages for everyone, but for me...i'm happy.
Anyone who lives/rides where there are cholo, goatheads or any other major tire piercing type plants should ride tubeless.

Tubeless is not the end all be all for tires and mountain biking. But for certain applications, they're great.

Ken
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
734 Posts
Ken you again have a number of fundamental errors

UST's don't require sealant
Most modern UST are as light or lighter (than tube tire + tube)
They are more reliable (less pinch flats)
They do (typically) have better traction and less rolling resistance

You also misquoted me; I never said that UST wasn't a little more expensive. I said that your story of paying double for UST was not reality (but again you missed the point completely) A UST is typically only a little more expensive.

I ran exactly the same tires in tube type that I now run UST (switched a year and a half ago) and I pay a couple dollars more for the UST's.

I live in an area infested by briars (berry) and roses and my tubed riding partners have dozens of flats per year (as I did when I ran tubes). I have only had to do one trail-side service in the nearly 2 years I have been using UST's (I would have at least 1 per month before UST) UST's leak down slowly even with multiple punctures. After several rides (or when i finally acquire so many punctures that the tire(s) will leak down in a matter of several hours, normally 6-12 punctures) I take a bottle of super-glue and patch them (it takes a minute or so per hole)

I don't run sealant because I see way too many downsides (tire corrosion, big mess when chaining tires, constant refilling, voiding manufacturers warranty, and questionable efficacy)
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top